Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court has expressed its concern over a bail order of the Allahabad High Court where it had observed that the victim “herself had invited trouble” and was also responsible for the alleged rape committed on her by the accused, reported IANS.
“There is another order now by another judge. Yes, bail can be granted. But what is this discussion that ‘she herself invited trouble, etc’.
One has to be careful when saying such things,” remarked a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih on April 15 as it dealt with the matter where it had suo moto stayed the Allahabad High Court judgment holding that grabbing breasts and breaking the pyjama string was not enough for charge of attempt to rape.
The Bench said that it will hear the suo moto matter, including the plea of the victim’s mother, after four weeks. Staying the impugned part of the Allahabad HC judgment, the apex court, on March 26, said that the observations depicted a total lack of sensitivity and an inhumane approach on the part of the author of the judgment.
“We have perused the said judgment and order dated 17.03.2025. We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned order and particularly in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment,” it said.
“But since the observations appearing in paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 are totally unknown to the cannons of law and depict a total insensitive and inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the said observations,” it added.
The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto case titled ‘In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and ancillary issues’ following a letter from senior advocate Shobha Gupta, who urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take cognisance of the observations made by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court while modifying a summoning order.
In its decision, a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad HC altered the charges against the two accused, who were originally summoned by the trial court for commission of offences under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 18 (punishment for attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
